Democrats sneak Un­cle Sam into your be­d­room

They give donors, po­lit­i­cal al­lies at Big Pharma a wet kiss

The Washington Times Daily - - Nation - By Dr. Mil­ton R. Wolf

Pop quiz: What is the most ex­pen­sive lunch you can buy? An­swer: The one some­one con­vinces you is free. Ask your av­er­age fifth-grader if there’s such thing as a free lunch. Now ask a Demo­crat. Care to wa­ger who’s smarter? An­other quiz: How can Democrats avoid dis­cus­sions of Oba­macare’s grow­ing price tag, the failed stim­u­lus, green job boon­dog­gles, un­em­ploy­ment, bank bailouts, auto takeovers, food stamps, credit down­grades and soar­ing gas prices? An­swer: Claim that Repub­li­cans want to steal your girly parts.

When the go­ing gets tough, the left gets pre­dictable. Democrats’ false prom­ises of big-gov­ern­ment utopia have col­lapsed once again and so they re­treat to their well-worn play­book, which re­ally only has three plays: class war­fare, an over­charged race card and an equally over­charged gen­der card. Throw in some good old-fash­ioned cor­po­rate boon­dog­gles and voila! Democrats have their re-elec­tion plan.

Un­der the sweep­ing pow­ers of Oba­macare, Health and Hu­man Ser­vices Sec­re­tary Kath­leen Se­be­lius is em­pow­ered to reach into our churches and di­rect how they will prac­tice their re­li­gion. Yawn. Just an­other day un­der Pres­i­dent Obama’s au­thor­i­tar­ian regime. But why ha­rass churches? Be­cause, as New York Demo­crat Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney claims, there’s a “Re­pub­li­can cru­sade to limit ac­cess to birth con­trol. . . .” There is?

Ac­cord­ing to the Guttmacher In­sti­tute, a spinoff of Planned Par­ent­hood, “Vir­tu­ally all women (more than 99 per­cent) aged 15–44 who have ever had sex­ual in­ter­course have used at least one con­tra­cep­tive method.” This is a cri­sis of limited ac­cess?

Democrats show­cased Ge­orge­town Univer­sity law stu­dent San­dra Fluke and her plea for a $3,000 birth con­trol free lunch. Mean­while, Wal-mart and Tar­get phar­ma­cies of­fer $9-a-month birth con­trol — $108 a year. Why the wild dif­fer­ence? Be­cause Democrats can’t en­rich their cronies on a mere hun­dred bucks a year.

The new HHS pro­vi­sions make no dis­tinc­tion be­tween high-end, ex­pen­sive birth con­trol and generic ver­sions. This is the big wet kiss to Big Pharma. They get rich much quicker col­lect­ing $3,000 for each coed in­stead of a measly $108. So Ms. Fluke gets a free lunch? Well, not quite. Some­body’s got to pay the in­creased taxes, higher in­sur­ance pre­mi­ums and — mark my words — in­creased con­tra­cep­tion costs. So the gov­ern­ment sim­ply trans­fers those bills to some­one else, like the jan­i­tors at Ge­orge­town Law, for ex­am­ple, who humbly clean up af­ter spoiled kids. I’ll bet those jan­i­tors buy their own birth con­trol at Wal-mart with­out whin­ing. But Ms. Fluke is en­ti­tled and I’m sure she’s worth it.

This cor­po­rate boon­dog­gle that turns Big Pharma into a wel­fare re­cip­i­ent on the backs of the work­ing class is not so dif­fer­ent than the light bulb ban. Gen­eral Elec­tric gets rich much quicker if Ms. Fluke’s jan­i­tors are forced to buy $5 com­pact-flu­o­res­cent light bulbs in­stead of the 50-cent in­can­des­cent ver­sion. But it’s for the en­vi­ron­ment, right? That GE and Big Pharma con­trib­ute gen­er­ously to Mr. Obama is just a mere co­in­ci­dence.

Do you see the pat­tern here? Democrats solve the global warm­ing “cri­sis” (even though the globe for­got to warm) and the “limit” on birth con­trol ac­cess (even with es­sen­tially 100 per­cent ac­cess al­ready achieved) al­ways by mak­ing their friends richer, you poorer and them­selves more pow­er­ful. There’s an­other pat­tern here. Politi­cians are like drug deal­ers. Once you’re ad­dicted to free­bies, you sud­denly re­al­ize the free lunch is not so free. Like the drug deal­ers, the politi­cians want your money, to be sure, but what they re­ally covet is your sub­mis­sion. They love telling you what to do and they al­ways claim it’s for your own good.

Think about it. The U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion grants no au­thor­ity to the fed­eral gov­ern­ment — and, in fact, the 10th Amend­ment pro­hibits it — to de­clare how fast you can drive your car or when you can buy your first beer or how many vegetable serv­ings you must pack in your kid’s school lunch. And yet they still do all these things. How? By dan­gling high­way funds or ed­u­ca­tion grants like a car­rot. Take that bait and you’ll soon learn in the fine print that you sur­ren­dered con­trol of ev­ery­thing from how much water your toi­let can flush to what web­sites your com­puter can ac­cess. And now the con­tra­cep­tion free lunch is the politi­cians’ key to your be­d­room door. Do you trust them with it? Of course, Democrats as­sume there will al­ways be an end­less sup­ply of birth con­trol pills to dole out. But should they? The cur­rent pre­scrip­tion drug short­age epi­demic is es­sen­tially limited to the med­i­ca­tions that are most highly reg­u­lated by the gov­ern­ment: in­jectable chemo­ther­a­pies and an­tibi­otics.

“If you put the fed­eral gov­ern­ment in charge of the Sa­hara Desert,” econ­o­mist Mil­ton Fried­man fa­mously said, “in five years there’d be a short­age of sand.” Well I say, if you put the fed­eral gov­ern­ment in charge of birth con­trol, there will be an­other short­age soon. We’ll call it the Obama Baby Boom.

IL­LUS­TRA­TION BY LI­NAS GARSYS

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.